United States v. Mahon, No. 12-10273 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 844(i) for the pipe bomb explosion of the Diversity Office in which three people were injured and property was damaged. Section 844(i) makes it a crime to damage or destroy, by means of an explosive, property that is “used in” interstate commerce or in “activity affecting” interstate commerce. The court concluded that an intrinsically noneconomic building can qualify under section 844(i) if the building actively engages in interstate commerce or activity that affects interstate commerce, as there is no categorical exclusion of any type of building. In this case, the Diversity Office regularly engaged in activities that affected interstate commerce. Because the Diversity Office had a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to support defendant’s prosecution under section 844(i), and his facial and as-applied contentions lack merit, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and (n) for a pipe bomb explosion at the City of Scottsdale Office of Diversity and Dialogue. The panel explained that an intrinsically non-economic building can qualify under § 844(i)’s interstate commerce requirement if the building actively engages in interstate commerce or activity that affects interstate commerce, and the fact that an entity is not-for-profit or municipal in nature does not foreclose a finding that it is actively engaged in interstate commerce. The panel held that the record demonstrates that the Diversity Office regularly engaged in activities that affected interstate commerce. Because § 844(i) has the necessary jurisdictional interstate-commerce element, the panel rejected the defendant’s facial challenge to its constitutionality. Because the Diversity Office possessed the requisite nexus to interstate commerce, the panel also rejected the defendant’s as-applied challenge to the statute’s constitutionality. UNITED STATES V. MAHON 3 COUNSEL. Daniel L. Kaplan (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender; Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant. Joan G. Ruffennach (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; John S. Leonardo, United States Attorney; Mark S. Kokanovich, Deputy Appellate Chief, Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.